Question on LEO buying personal weapon

This is the format we use for individual officer purchases as do any that want to purchase from GT. I have no idea how it works when you walk into GT. This is a copy paste directly from www.gtdist.com and is the exact format you put onto agency letterhead.

I. I, ______________________#______, an Officer with _________________,
(Full name of officer) (Dept ID#) (Dept. Name)
am authorized to purchase the following weapon to be used in the

II. I, ____________________________, herby certify that the above named
(Full name of supervisor)
law enforcement officer is currently employed with the _______________,
(Dept. Name)
and the firearm being purchased will be used by the officer in the

__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-

That is different from buying a weapon under individual officer purchase paperwork through an agency. You still own the weapon going this route but you are sold the weapon without taxes and at a reduced rate with the signed intent you are going to keep it and use it for duty. Buying it from a LSG with police id is the same as you buying it without.

When I bought the G27, with ID, I got it tax free and at a reduced rate....I think it was more then 100+ difference in price had I not used dept ID....

I bought it on 6/6/12 and paid 429.99 out the door....just looked at the receipt....blue label and all...

When I bought the G27, with ID, I got it tax free and at a reduced rate....I think it was more then 100+ difference in price had I not used dept ID....

If you purchased it by walking into a gun shop and got that deal they are a licensed law enforcement distributor or they can't sell them that cheap without losing money.

We do not have a local place to walk into as I have said above and must use the format posted above to purchase duty weapons individually. The dealer prices on Glocks are more than what they sell them to LEO for. Meaning you can't get a Glock for $395 bucks with 3 standard capacity mags without them being a LE dealer.

I do not know how it works on a walk in basis as I have said numerous times. We order and the forms that our firearm distributors use almost exactly what is posted above. That is an individual officer purchase form for firearms.

__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-

When you're purchasing a Blue Label Glock via an agency letterhead, it's sales tax exempt. (Seems like you can also order it from an out-of-state dealer). With the letterhead, you're limited to purchasing the exact model and caliber approved by the agency (or at least specified in the letter that somebody is willing to sign off on).

When you're purchasing a Blue Label Glock without an agency letterhead, you have to pay the sales tax. And you can purchase any model or caliber you want. Say your agency only approves G22s. Without a letterhead, you can purchase Blue Label G19 or G36 or whatever, knowing full well the gun would never be approved for duty use.

Who can buy a Blue Label Glock? Glock Inc has a list of some 20 (?) occupations that are elibigle to purchase Blue Label Glocks. I think even being a member of the Glock NSSF lets you to buy one. It's definitely not limited to just LE.

And to be able to get the "LE price", you'd have to go to a LGS that has such a program set up with Glock Inc. (AKA "LE Dealer").

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

If she purchases it under letterhead which is what I think he is referring to it is for duty use only by the officer. An individual officer purchase is always done under letterhead which requires a superior officer to sign off on stating the the officer will use it for duty and if it is shipped directly to the department that the ranking officer has conducted a background check on the officer. You can not specifically use this method to buy a family member a weapon.

That being said, you can however buy the weapon, carry it on duty one day in a duty, off duty, back up or what ever other method you need to meet the stipulations of the individual officer purchase and then you are clear to do what ever legal things you want to do with the weapon.

The individual officer program only applies to states that allow the weapons/magazine capacity and if you can own it you can do this.

Also incorrect. Glock makes the "blue label" pricing available at specific dealers. Those dealers can sell FTF or ship to another FFL to complete the transfer. Showing credentials to that dealer to prove eligibility for the pricing is different than a CLEO signed letter stating that the gun is for duty use. The letter is used to have the gun shipped directly to the agency, therefore bypassing the FFL/4473 requirement.

__________________"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

Also incorrect. Glock makes the "blue label" pricing available at specific dealers. Those dealers can sell FTF or ship to another FFL to complete the transfer. Showing credentials to that dealer to prove eligibility for the pricing is different than a CLEO signed letter stating that the gun is for duty use. The letter is used to have the gun shipped directly to the agency, therefore bypassing the FFL/4473 requirement.

That is actually what I just said. In order for them to be able to sell the weapons at LE price they have to be able to purchase the as an LE dealer. The dealer price for Glocks is higher than $395 per (not 45/10mm).

Dealer price with a significant buy in is around $415-$435 as of about a year ago for a Glock with 2 magazines. If it happened any other way Glock would have to refund the dealer the price difference or it would cost the dealer money. I understand the form also bypasses the FFL/4473 requirement and stated as such above and pasted the exact form also stating that from GT Dist which owns territory for Glock LE sales.

__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-

This brings up a similar well published situation that happened here in AZ, somebody from out of state paid another person from out of state to travel here and buy a gun, but yet neither was arrested. So in this instant I would say it is legal. But then the person that financed it seems to be above the law

Hmmmm. Now here's a question... under LEOSA, why shouldn't a cop from state "A" be allowed go go to state "H" and purchase a gun there? As long as that purchase in state "H" is made under the same requirements imposed on CCWers in state "H"?

Yeah, I know HR218/LEOSA only says what you're allowed to do. But why shouldn't that be allowed as a natural right derived from the same rights as a CCWer in state "H?"

I know it may sound radical right now. But let's sleep on it and think about it. LEOSA gives visiting LEOs the same rights as a CCWer of that state. So let that include purchasing ammo and guns.

OK, there's the issue of transporting the gun out of state. But if the gun is not transported out of state, but kept in-state (summer home, retirement home, etc...)

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

Hmmmm. Now here's a question... under LEOSA, why shouldn't a cop from state "A" be allowed go go to state "H" and purchase a gun there? As long as that purchase in state "H" is made under the same requirements imposed on CCWers in state "H"?

Yeah, I know HR218/LEOSA only says what you're allowed to do. But why shouldn't that be allowed as a natural right derived from the same rights as a CCWer in state "H?"

I know it may sound radical right now. But let's sleep on it and think about it. LEOSA gives visiting LEOs the same rights as a CCWer of that state. So let that include purchasing ammo and guns.

OK, there's the issue of transporting the gun out of state. But if the gun is not transported out of state, but kept in-state (summer home, retirement home, etc...)

You most certainly could go to a store, and purchase any gun you like. The issue is the FFL holder will not let you walk out of the store with it because you are a non-resident, and will have to have an FFL in your home state receive it. Re-selling it is not the issue, but if it is transported across state lines it is a separate criminal violation.

Otherwise with as many toys as I buy on auction sites, I would take more road trips.

Intentionally buying a gun for a known out-of-state resident will do it... The LGS told him that they will sell the out-of-state relative the gun at the discounted price, but the LGS will have to ship it to the relative's out-of-state FFL. Then the relative can do the paperwork, pay for it, etc...

This is not a "gift" to the relative because the relative reimbursed him for the cost via the cancelled check.

At least figure out how to do it, just like hundreds of people do everyday, when they sell/trade their guns without getting in trouble.

There's also the issue that in exchange for money, he transferred the handgun directly to an out-of-state person.

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

When you look at the label on a Glock gun box, the label is coloured: blue, red, white (maybe more?).

I still maintain that blue label guns are those cherry picked from the assembly lines.

Anyway, Generation 3 Glocks in blue labels came with 3 magazines while red and white labels come with 2. Glock's website provide a list of occupations (20 something occupations, including GSSF membership) that "allows" purchases of blue labels. However, each LGS, if they want, can sell blue label guns to anyone. The LGS just can't sell it at the agreed to discount they have with Glock Inc. Think of it as when General Motors offers their "employee discount" to the general public as a sales incentive. But when that incentive is not advertised, your local GM dealer can still say "pssst... because you two seem like such a nice couple, I'll sell you this car at a discount equal to the employee discount."

However, with Generation 4 guns, all guns (regardless of colour labels) come with 3 mags. (Which to me shows gen 3 models are way more popular than gen 4 models!)

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

This is pretty much what I was thinking about. She would buy it more or less as a private citizen who is able to use the LEO discount. No department involvement (unless there is a policy prohibiting this).

there are no issues in what you have described.

__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan

yeah he crossed state lines, not what we are talking about here, had he driven to PA and transferred the gun through a ffl a week later he would have had no problem as a gift....

He has other problems or this would not even have cropped up.

__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan

Hmmmm. Now here's a question... under LEOSA, why shouldn't a cop from state "A" be allowed go go to state "H" and purchase a gun there? As long as that purchase in state "H" is made under the same requirements imposed on CCWers in state "H"?

Yeah, I know HR218/LEOSA only says what you're allowed to do. But why shouldn't that be allowed as a natural right derived from the same rights as a CCWer in state "H?"

I know it may sound radical right now. But let's sleep on it and think about it. LEOSA gives visiting LEOs the same rights as a CCWer of that state. So let that include purchasing ammo and guns.

OK, there's the issue of transporting the gun out of state. But if the gun is not transported out of state, but kept in-state (summer home, retirement home, etc...)

LEOSA does not provide officers with the same rights as a concealed weapons permit holder. It provides them with the ability to carry within the restrictions of the act itself, which may be more or less restrictive than any given state's permit system. Take Illinois, for example, as of yet there is NO carry permit system in place. Heck, take New York City.

__________________"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

That is different from buying a weapon under individual officer purchase paperwork through an agency. You still own the weapon going this route but you are sold the weapon without taxes and at a reduced rate with the signed intent you are going to keep it and use it for duty. Buying it from a LSG with police id is the same as you buying it without.

I've bought two Glocks at the LEO discount price by just showing my badge and credential in person at a local store.

I didn't sign any paper stating any intent on how to use it or resell it.